I mean, it's more the absurdity of the excuse? Also, I was given to understand that the main reason he's in France in the first place is for the 100 year commemorations, so that makes it even worse. It's not as though it was a random side trip tacked on in the first place.

Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”

Angua wrote:I mean, it's more the absurdity of the excuse? Also, I was given to understand that the main reason he's in France in the first place is for the 100 year commemorations, so that makes it even worse. It's not as though it was a random side trip tacked on in the first place.

Oh, yeah; I'm not saying it shouldn't be a news story at all -- and the excuse is really dumb. I'm just saying that some of the responses I've seen to this seem to be treating it like a grave insult -- as if he's committed some terrible transgression. And I find that silly.

I guess I'm just very leery of the whole notion of shaming political figures for failing to prostrate themselves before the altar of patriotism and self-sacrifice. I don't like it when Republicans wag their fingers at Democrats for it, and I don't like it when Democrats wag their fingers at Republicans for it. If Trump had just said, "Sorry, I'm feeling a bit under the weather today", I'd be fine with that. I imagine others might not be.

Admittedly, this might just be my reflexive aversion toward a political landscape that prioritizes symbolism over reality. I recognize that symbolic action is way more important than I sometimes give it credit for, though.

But the alternate, public, reason is… godsawful. Honestly. It could at least have been news of a spurious security alert (quashed, in time for there to be nothing blocking the event and other HsOS being there, but too late to reinstate Secret Service-approved travel plans), not wanting to put ideas into their heads for next time (but I'll kindly accept a fee for its use, if it comes to be anyway - have your people talk to my people).

Meanwhile, neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays… No, wait, that's those real public servants, who seem to be responsible for a far lower proportion of random cracking up and initiation of gun violence these days. Which is good, yes?

I remember that one from Have I Got News For You, when Ian Hislop pointed out the technical detail that really ought to have got more attention: the paper* said it was her 16th birthday that day, but papers are printed the night before they're published, meaning either they were lying about it being her 16th birthday or they were lying about her being old enough at the time the picture was taken for taking the picture to have been legal.

YouTube search for that clip: no luck. Google search for that story:

Brown star was a Page 3 girl aged 15 - Daily Mailhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Gordon- ... ge-3-mod...28 Mar 2010 - Brown star was a Page 3 girl aged 15: Yesterday she posed with PM, but 20 ... Brown in a promotional photo posed topless when she was 15 years old. ... the heart of the campaign is bound to spark fresh controversy about the way that ..... and radiant as she poses in a plunging monokini during sun-soaked ...

..... of course. Of course. Of course there's a Daily Heil story about it, with pictures.

* (not a newspaper, just a paper, owned by the same guy as Fox, not that people watching "the o'reilly factor" give a damn about someone selling photographs of topless 15-year-olds in the street)

“There are three rules: (1) no bright light, (2) don’t get him wet, and (3) never feed him after midnight, no matter how much he begs. Bright light hurts him, and sunlight can kill him. If he gets wet, he pops out more mogwais.”

It explains a lot, like that fake tan.

"Does this smell like chloroform to you?""Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

In actuality, the President's hair is a Great Old One, as evinced by its non-euclidean form. It is his brain's proximity to this abomination's Eldritch influence that has destroyed his mind and decency, leaving him to babble semi-coherently while mocking the disabled, disparaging injured veterans and Gold Star families, and treating women abhorently.

The racist stuff is pure Donald, though. He is a Lovecraft protagonist.

ijuin wrote:Does “after midnight” mean between midnight and dawn? Because even 11:59 PM is “after” the previous midnight...

I figured "after midnight" meant between midnight and sunrise, with dawn defining the start of a new day. Of course, for that definition to make sense, midnight would have to be the mid point between sunset and sunrise, which is not necessarily 12:00. Gremlins will take over the world due to Daylight Saving Time.

Either that, or it's the other way around: the hair is Trump, and everything else is just a giant reproductive organ. He's nearing the end of his reproductive cycle, and in a handful of years, the rest will fall off, leaving only the hair. That would explain, well........

I mean, we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that Trump intentionally appointed people who would dismiss all concerns about human life for the sake of money. Every single Republican voter is absolutely 100% okay with corporations poisoning Americans so long as it is profitable. They don't even ask what it costs them - that's how little they value the lives of other people; the evil pieces of shit just don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves.

Thesh wrote:Every single Republican voter is absolutely 100% okay with corporations poisoning Americans so long as it is profitable.

Every single Democratic voter is absolutely 100% okay with bombing Middle Easterners to death so long as it is profitable.

Let's not forget that Hillary was responsible for TWO wars, one of which has done far more to disrupt international stability than Iraq has. It's entirely possible to view the Oompa Loompan Overlord as the lesser of two evils, even as we disagree about which one was worse.

Eliminating the EPA is a core part of the Republican platform, and there isn't a single Republican in power that is not on board with destroying the environment. There are no Republicans who value human life in any form.

1) The EPA was a republican creation2) An argument can be made, not one I agree with but one I can respect, that the EPA and other pollution controls combined with free trade results in more pollution as the manufacturing just goes to the country with the least controls of all. Unless carbon caps and so forth are enforced by all, the rules might as well be a no peeing zone in the swimming pool.3) Jobs and money saved lives just as pollution kills them. Again the argument can be made that you are improving lives more than you harm. After all, every $100,000,000 spent on construction will kill one construction worker (part of the reason Ayn Rand's lovechild with Tolkein, Terry Goodkind, endorsed construction unions), yet we still view construction jobs as a good thing and still build bridges and skyscrapers.

CorruptUser wrote:...3) Jobs and money saved lives just as pollution kills them. Again the argument can be made that you are improving lives more than you harm. After all, every $100,000,000 spent on construction will kill one construction worker (part of the reason Ayn Rand's lovechild with Tolkein, Terry Goodkind, endorsed construction unions), yet we still view construction jobs as a good thing and still build bridges and skyscrapers.

Yet in this example, the republicans are also against regulations which contribute to worker safety, where as the democrats/liberals are typically for safer workplaces.

Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

CorruptUser wrote:1) The EPA was a republican creation2) An argument can be made, not one I agree with but one I can respect, that the EPA and other pollution controls combined with free trade results in more pollution as the manufacturing just goes to the country with the least controls of all. Unless carbon caps and so forth are enforced by all, the rules might as well be a no peeing zone in the swimming pool.3) Jobs and money saved lives just as pollution kills them. Again the argument can be made that you are improving lives more than you harm. After all, every $100,000,000 spent on construction will kill one construction worker (part of the reason Ayn Rand's lovechild with Tolkein, Terry Goodkind, endorsed construction unions), yet we still view construction jobs as a good thing and still build bridges and skyscrapers.

1) irrelevant, today the entire Republican party is opposed to anything environmental2) Nothing more than a rationalization that is intended to prevent thinking about the problem3) That ignores everyone outside of the US, and Republicans never even ask to do the math. They just say it costs jobs and nothing more. They say that about any regulation no matter how small, simply because they think it costs them money

Stop pretending Republicans spend any time at all thinking about the consequences of their actions. It's bullshit.

you can't say that voting republican could be justified by democrat warmongering because voting republican isn't going to prevent warmongering. "they're doing it too" might defeat an argument against someone, but it's not an argument for someone.

if republicans were well known as the party of decreased military aggression, then okay, i could see someone who cares more about that than any other issue voting against democratic warmongering by voting republican. but do i really need to point out the problem with the antecedent of that conditional there?

Really, the only anti-war President we've had in recent memory was Carter. Clinton got us involved in wars we didnt need to be, as did both Bush's, and Reagan, Nixon, JFK, hey hey LBJ how many kids did you kill today. Ford, eh. Really, only one truly antiwar President.

Thesh wrote: Every single Republican voter is absolutely 100% okay with corporations poisoning Americans so long as it is profitable. They don't even ask what it costs them - that's how little they value the lives of other people; the evil pieces of shit just don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves.

...

Eliminating the EPA is a core part of the Republican platform, and there isn't a single Republican in power that is not on board with destroying the environment. There are no Republicans who value human life in any form.

While I think I understand where this sentiment is coming from -- and can even sympathize with it ("All cops are bastards") -- it's neither helpful nor true.

I can see a certain emotional benefit to perceiving it this way. Given all the nonsense going on, I'm loathe to criticize anyone who says it for the sake of that benefit. But outside of the warm and fuzzy feelings we get from making absolute statements about things that appear to be true, I don't think it ultimately serves us well -- particularly when it's demonstrably false.

I'll concede this much: "The current Republican party clearly values profit over life, money over environment, and corporations over people" is not a statement I find even remotely contentious.

The Great Hippo wrote:But outside of the warm and fuzzy feelings we get from making absolute statements about things that appear to be true, I don't think it ultimately serves us well -- particularly when it's demonstrably false.

How, exactly, is it demonstrably false? Where are the Republicans who are showing enough concern for climate change or any kind of pollution to take action? They may say they disagree, but they don't actually care - it doesn't occupy their thoughts, it doesn't change their vote, it doesn't affect their political views at all. They find the pollution, the dumping, the poisoning of groundwater, etc. all to be acceptable. They care about the environment in the exact same way that they aren't racist.

Thesh wrote:How, exactly, is it demonstrably false? Where are the Republicans who are showing enough concern for climate change or any kind of pollution to take action? They may say they disagree, but they don't actually care - it doesn't occupy their thoughts, it doesn't change their vote, it doesn't affect their political views at all. They find the pollution, the dumping, the poisoning of groundwater, etc. all to be acceptable. They care about the environment in the exact same way that they aren't racist.

I get where you're coming from, and I'm down with the majority of what you're saying, but I feel a little bit like St. Augustine of Hippo urging Christians to stop selling the Bible's accounts as absolute even when they contradict proven science: All you end up doing is making the rest of us look ridiculous. Especially when these points end up being things that are easily refutable.

The "100%" was hyperbole, sure. In any group of people that self-identity with, there will be some people that differ on every issue; however, if they are voting for them then it is obviously not a very high priority. That said, ACAB is absolutely true in America (it's impossible to be a good cop if you enforce our laws and send people to our prisons).

Thesh wrote:That said, ACAB is absolutely true in America (it's impossible to be a good cop if you enforce our laws and send people to our prisons).

Is this not also hyperbole? Or do you actually literally mean that there doesn't exist even one police officer in the entire country that is not a Bad Cop?

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Thesh wrote:That said, ACAB is absolutely true in America (it's impossible to be a good cop if you enforce our laws and send people to our prisons).

Is this not also hyperbole? Or do you actually literally mean that there doesn't exist even one police officer in the entire country that is not a Bad Cop?

Jose

I mean it literally. There is not a single one. If you send someone to prison, you participate in slavery and torture. If you enforce property laws, you cause the poverty that leads to the crimes that justify police to begin with. That's even before we get to all of the problems like police harassing the poor while ignoring far worse crimes committed by the police.

Might be worth calling attention to the differences between areatic and deontic or consequentialist senses of "good" here.

There are plenty of people of generally good moral character who think they are doing good by enforcing the laws, and do so in a generally kind manner in their day to day jobs. In an areatic sense those are "good cops". They're not mean, purposefully cruel, or corrupt cops.

But that has no bearing on the consequences sardia and Thesh mention that their actions nevertheless contribute to.

Thesh wrote:I mean it literally. There is not a single one. If you send someone to prison, you participate in slavery and torture.

Well, since we are going to literal extremes already, if you don't put a murderer behind bars (or the electric chair) you are enabling and defending wanton killing. Are you actually saying that police who apprehend a murderer, so that a judge could send them to prison, are Bad Cops? What is your alternative?

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

that only follows if you think that police are the only possible way to deal with crime.

the system of policing we have was founded in white supremacy and exists, still, to utilize state violence to uphold white supremacy and protect capital. it is impossible to act as an enforcer of this violent white supremacist system and also be "a good cop"; the institute of policing is inherently one that dehumanizes people and protects wealth.

and yes, the police who apprehend a murderer so a judge can send them to prison are bad cops. they are bad people. the entire system is rotten to the core. our prison system also exists specifically and intentionally to perpetuate slavery. police are violent agents of modern day slavery.

the fact that our whole society is constructed to hold this as the only way to deal with violence doesn't make it good or justify its abuses. we need a restructuring of all of society to obviate the need for policing. that doesn't mean that individual police are excused from culpability in the meantime.

and here's a primer for starting to think of policing alternatives. but, again, the fact that we do not yet live in a slavery-free world doesn't excuse the people who actively make the choice to violently enforce the slave system we currently have.

eta: also, cu's think of the children nonsense is laughable. there's literally no non-violent "helpful" thing the police do that can not be done, BETTER, by people whose primary purpose is not violence.

You want to know the future, love? Then wait:I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

That's all well and good, but what do you do when someone just murdered your sister? Platitudes like "Get to know your neighbors" or "Rewrite your internal script about police" or "Start where you can, build from there" are well and good, but at that point, what is your goal? You know that there's somebody out there who is willing to kill, who has done so, and you know who it is. There's evidence all around.

You would be irresponsible to not pursue that person's capture.

After they are captured, we can decide what to do about it, but until they are captured, they are a clear and present danger to your other friends and family.

So... what do you do?

Now, I'll agree that calling the cops because somebody "looks suspicious" or is "driving while black" is not a good use of government power. But the argument is one of literally 100%. This includes the case I'm talking about - cold blooded murder of your sister. Who you gonna call?

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

you're talking as if this is in fact a hypothetical for everyone participating in this discussion. i have been a victim of horrific violence myself, and had family murdered. it didn't magically convince me that calling MORE murderers in was the right solution, and, in fact, when the cops got involved in my situation (being a victim of a literally murderous stalker who raped me for years and killed someone i love dearly) the cops a) killed someone else i love and b) put the only person who was actually protecting me from violence in jail.

this isn't uncommon. the majority of victims of ongoing violence that i know who have gotten cops involved in their cases have ended up worse for it. because the system is not built to protect people. saying "but what about [horrific violence] happening" isn't some kind of gotcha, it's a lived reality for lots of people, and the cops aren't the solution. people who still think the police are there to help think of this as a gotcha, but when you understand how very little the police, currently, at this exact moment, do to genuinely protect people it doesn't magically become like "oh but what about MURDERERS" because a) the police are themselves murderers and b) they already fail, consistently, to protect people from murderers.

You want to know the future, love? Then wait:I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

There's numerous alternative models proposed for how to deal with violent actions that don't involve enshrining a portion of our populace with the right to perform violence with impunity. That being said:

natraj wrote:people who still think the police are there to help think of this as a gotcha, but when you understand how very little the police, currently, at this exact moment, do to genuinely protect people it doesn't magically become like "oh but what about MURDERERS" because a) the police are themselves murderers and b) they already fail, consistently, to protect people from murderers.

This is an issue I find myself confronted with again and again in American society. Our obsession with reciprocity far exceeds our desire to prevent violence. The idea that violence might go unpunished concerns us more than the idea that violence might occur.

We'd rather construct an apparatus to sanctify hundreds of killers -- providing them the right to commit thousands of murders per year -- then permit the possibility that a single murderer might go free.